On 1/26/08, Brad Beyenhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 26, 2008 4:36 PM, Mark Schoonover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/26/08, Brad Beyenhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 25, 2008 9:17 PM, Mark Schoonover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > On 1/26/08, Brad Beyenhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 25, 2008 8:42 PM, Mark Schoonover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Well, I don't know if I won since it took me almost the entire > week of > > > > > > thinking about it before I had that aha moment! > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of "taking all week," how should the schedule be going? If > > > > > we're sticking to one lecture per week, MIT-OCW says we should be > > > > > having L3 next Monday, with the 1.1 exercises, Problem Set 1, and > > > > > Project 0 all due then (not to mention reading 1.2 in the text). > > > > > > > > > > I haven't even read the L2 notes yet, though I should be able to get > > > > > through them tomorrow. As for Problem Set 1, I don't even know where > > > > > to find that. How is everybody doing with all this? > > > > > > > > Well, I wasn't really trying to stick to the exact calendar, just what > do > > > we > > > > need to do. I'm planning on moving on to the next section tomorrow. > > > > > > The main reason I mentioned it is that the whole iteration/recursion > > > discussion here looks like it was triggered by Section 1.2 of the SICP > > > text. Should we be trying to stay together? As I mentioned above, I'm > > > just getting started on L2 and I've not even begun reading 1.2. > > > > Well, that's probably going to happen, and I'm OK with it. For myself, > > I can devote about 3-4 hours per week to this group. That leaves me > > with less time to do the actual problems once you tack on keeping the > > wiki up to date. > > > > Most of us work fulltime, have families and such. I didn't want to > > hammer on a strict schedule, but to move along at a rate that people > > would enjoy working within the group. I'm using the MIT calendar for > > organizational purposes only, not to stay on a specific schedule. > > > > Hopefully I'm more clear than I was in the past... > > OK, that's reasonable. I was just already feeling left behind because > I wasn't able to follow the recursion/iteration conversation(s). I > suppose I can just read those threads again once I get through that > part of the text, but with the aforementioned "extracurricular > responsibilities" (work, family, etc.) I don't know that I'll be able > to. > > But then again, maybe I need to try not to be such a perfectionist > about involving myself in every possible way... it's just that, since > I've fairly recently switched careers to IT, I'm trying to absorb > everything I can to make up for the lack of "formal" CS training. >
Well, we'll do just fine then! The problem of some people getting ahead is the reason why I'm indexing things on the wiki. We can go at our own rate, and if others start discussing things further along, it'll be easy to find those threads in the wiki. Then, if you want, you can still respond to those threads and ask more questions, or whatever. Speaking of wiki, I'm off to get that updated. The XTutor looks cool, I'll have to dig more into that in my copious extra time! :} > -- > Brad Beyenhof http://augmentedfourth.com > The history of popular music is littered with great partnerships. > Rodgers had his Hammerstein, Lennon had his McCartney, and Lloyd Webber > had... his photocopier... ~Humphrey Lyttleton > > -- > [email protected] > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg > -- Mark Schoonover, CMDBA http://www.linkedin.com/in/markschoonover http://marksitblog.blogspot.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
